The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: wouterbakker on January 27, 2014, 02:39:09 AM

Title: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: wouterbakker on January 27, 2014, 02:39:09 AM
So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: rottingroom on January 27, 2014, 02:59:11 AM
So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.

There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: JiffyJuff on January 27, 2014, 04:00:36 AM
So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.

There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.
I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.

Also, shouldn't this be in discussion? Debate is for debating between RE and FE, not for FE to discuss.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: wouterbakker on January 27, 2014, 04:26:06 AM
So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.

There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.
I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.

Also, shouldn't this be in discussion? Debate is for debating between RE and FE, not for FE to discuss.

I thought debate was the right place, the situation was me debating an REer. I'm quite new as well, so I'm still getting used to this format; I guess I'll post such questions in discussion from here on out.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Antonio on January 27, 2014, 04:59:24 AM
So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.

There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.
I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.

Also, shouldn't this be in discussion? Debate is for debating between RE and FE, not for FE to discuss.

Actually  you have some online interesting tools

http://www.flightradar24.com (http://www.flightradar24.com)

or
flightaware.com (http://flightaware.com)

that are quite accurate.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: JiffyJuff on January 28, 2014, 12:01:54 AM
So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.

There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.
I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.

Also, shouldn't this be in discussion? Debate is for debating between RE and FE, not for FE to discuss.

I thought debate was the right place, the situation was me debating an REer. I'm quite new as well, so I'm still getting used to this format; I guess I'll post such questions in discussion from here on out.
Well, a bit of background info.
On this site, both RE and FE people have accounts. And as this is RET forums, they naturally disagree, so the debate section is a strictly moderated place where people have to carry out serious, logical debate.

While you ARE in a debate, the debate is not occurring in this thread and your opponent does not have an account here. Therefore, for suggestions, you shouldn't be here.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on January 28, 2014, 07:20:13 AM

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

Nope.  There's nothing you can say to "disprove" his RE theory.  And the simple reason is because the earth IS round (or an oblate spheroid).

And to be pedantic for a moment, there's no such thing as a round earth "theory".  It's a fact that the earth is round—just as it's a fact that a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.  There's no "theory" about water.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Sculelos on January 28, 2014, 09:39:13 AM

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

Nope.  There's nothing you can say to "disprove" his RE theory.  And the simple reason is because the earth IS round (or an oblate spheroid).

And to be pedantic for a moment, there's no such thing as a round earth "theory".  It's a fact that the earth is round—just as it's a fact that a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.  There's no "theory" about water.

So your pretty much saying Earth is shaped like a Egg or Football?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: wouterbakker on January 29, 2014, 02:59:41 AM

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

Nope.  There's nothing you can say to "disprove" his RE theory.  And the simple reason is because the earth IS round (or an oblate spheroid).

And to be pedantic for a moment, there's no such thing as a round earth "theory".  It's a fact that the earth is round—just as it's a fact that a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.  There's no "theory" about water.

But what are your arguments? We're here to debate whether the earth is round or not, just saying "it is round hurdur" without bringing any arguments to the table is not debating.

What is your proof that the earth is round?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 05:28:37 AM

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

Nope.  There's nothing you can say to "disprove" his RE theory.  And the simple reason is because the earth IS round (or an oblate spheroid).

And to be pedantic for a moment, there's no such thing as a round earth "theory".  It's a fact that the earth is round—just as it's a fact that a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.  There's no "theory" about water.

But what are your arguments? We're here to debate whether the earth is round or not, just saying "it is round hurdur" without bringing any arguments to the table is not debating.

What is your proof that the earth is round?
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think fr themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: mathsman on January 29, 2014, 06:39:43 AM
They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think fr themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.

The two greatest educational institutions on the face of this earth are your mother's knee and the local library.
On your mother's knee you will learn everything needed to keep you out of prison and at the local library you can learn everything else.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: John Davis on January 29, 2014, 06:42:17 AM
So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?
First off, are you sure he actually did this and is not just presenting guesses as evidence?

Secondly, circumnavigation is possible in all flat earth models. See:  the UN Logo.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 07:58:48 AM

So your pretty much saying Earth is shaped like a Egg or Football?

Nope.  I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying the planet is an oblate spheroid.  Both eggs (almost) and footballs are prolate spheroids.

Prolate spheroids are elongated along their major axis, whereas oblate spheroids are contracted along their major axis.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 08:16:13 AM

What is your proof that the earth is round?

Literally thousand of real time satellite still images acquired by the USA's KH-11 satellite system.

This is actual night-time imagery recorded by the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership Satellite in 2012:

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2012/12/6/1354790058893/Cloud-free-night-time-vie-016.jpg)

 
What more evidence does one need than real photographs?
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 08:22:25 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.


Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 08:27:40 AM

Secondly, circumnavigation is possible in all flat earth models. See:  the UN Logo.

The UN emblem does not attempt to represent a "flat" earth, and never did.

It's simply a map of the world representing an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the North Pole.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 08:56:14 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.


Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 09:44:49 AM
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

Uh... this doesn't address my question about your sources of evidence (above).
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 10:04:58 AM
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

Uh... this doesn't address my question about your sources of evidence (above).
I've just gave you a perfect piece of evidence.
You have provided none to prove otherwise.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 10:09:36 AM
I've just gave you a perfect piece of evidence.
You have provided none to prove otherwise.

I'm not asking you for evidence primarily.  I'm asking you more particularly to clarify your sources of evidence...

Quote
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 10:17:20 AM
I've just gave you a perfect piece of evidence.
You have provided none to prove otherwise.

I'm not asking you for evidence primarily.  I'm asking you more particularly to clarify your sources of evidence...

Quote
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
Anyone can clarify it . Just go about and look at where the water all runs to. That's enough clarity. You don't even need books or hear say to prove it to yourself.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: inquisitive on January 29, 2014, 10:20:25 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.


Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.
Your proof that it is concave?  How does that tie in with a horizon if it slopes upwards?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 10:36:04 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.


Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.
Your proof that it is concave?  How does that tie in with a horizon if it slopes upwards?
Your horizon is solely down to your vision, not slope of anything.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: inquisitive on January 29, 2014, 11:10:24 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.


Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.
Your proof that it is concave?  How does that tie in with a horizon if it slopes upwards?
Your horizon is solely down to your vision, not slope of anything.
Please explain.  So the earth slopes upwards to make it concave.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 11:17:34 AM

I'm sorry to harp on about this, but I'm not asking you for evidence primarily.  I'm asking you more particularly to clarify your sources of your FE evidence...

Quote
As you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable RE evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 29, 2014, 02:08:29 PM
Anyone can clarify it . Just go about and look at where the water all runs to.
Presumably you mean rivers specifically?

Rivers flow in different directions, depending on where you are.  For example the Thames flows roughly from West to East into the Thames estuary.  Whereas on the other side the River Severn flows the opposite direction into the sea.  This is, of course, the norm all over the world.

Are you suggesting they are all flowing towards some common point?  A basin in the middle of the planet?  Because this clearly isn't the case.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Spank86 on January 29, 2014, 02:45:06 PM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.


Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

there's oceans in every direction. that doesn't prove anything.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 03:10:09 PM


Are you suggesting they are all flowing towards some common point?  A basin in the middle of the planet?  Because this clearly isn't the case.
It isn't the case for you, because you think you live on a rotating globe, so I don't expect you to get your head around it.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 03:13:20 PM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.


Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

there's oceans in every direction. that doesn't prove anything.
There's ocean around the dinner plate,yes
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: reofcourse on January 30, 2014, 05:47:28 AM
Secondly, circumnavigation is possible in all flat earth models.

Actually, no, it isn't possible. Some forms of circumnavigation are while others are not. A "vertical" circumnavigation over both poles is perfectly feasible (although not routinely taken because it has no practical benefits for two reasons: the poles are not among the usual flying targets and crossing over the pole has the disadvantage of doing away with the possibility of crash landing) in both theory and practice but completely impossible in a FE hypothesis.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Spank86 on January 30, 2014, 05:50:23 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.


Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?
It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

there's oceans in every direction. that doesn't prove anything.
There's ocean around the dinner plate,yes

Rivers flow into the Mediterranean from all sides, there is however no appreciable flow through he straits of Gibraltar aside from tidal movement. There's also flow of rivers north from russia and canada as well as east and west in india west in Japan and east in china.

TBH given all the oceans and rivers its better explained by local elevation instead of some overall curve. There's no way to draw a map so every river flows downhill on a uniform curve.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 30, 2014, 08:14:16 AM
There's ocean around the dinner plate,yes
What dinner plate?  You do give the impression of making stuff up as you go along.

I can't imagine this: can you draw a diagram?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Ski on January 31, 2014, 03:30:40 PM
So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: reofcourse on February 01, 2014, 02:02:38 AM
"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.

You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on February 01, 2014, 10:30:33 AM

I note that sceptimatic never answered my questions about his own sources of information that he uses to support his belief in a flat earth.

A few days ago he said that "They [REs] have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet, of course".

And I said:

Quote
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data YOU utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It's becoming apparent that when a FE can't answer a direct question, they invariably just ignore it and hope, given time, people will forget about it and it'll just go away.

So... what about it sceptimatic?
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Ski on February 01, 2014, 07:10:39 PM
"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.

You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.

As it would on a planar earth as well.

Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Starman on February 19, 2014, 12:43:45 PM
If you fly South it has to be a straight line. And then what happens. Do you hit the south pole or flip to another world underneath the earth?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Dantheman14 on February 19, 2014, 01:48:23 PM
"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.

You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.

As it would on a planar earth as well.
The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude.  It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: 29silhouette on February 19, 2014, 02:20:01 PM
The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude.  It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)
Be sure to add "at the equator only". 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Ski on February 20, 2014, 07:39:43 AM
"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.

You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.

As it would on a planar earth as well.
The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude.  It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)
Errm.. It would...  ???
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: SirSpankalot on February 25, 2014, 01:08:18 AM
"West" is not a straight line direction from Amsterdam on either the earth or even a globe.

You do the same harping on a word like jroa. Flying West in everyday common speech like this simply means flying on the same latitude with decreasing longitude. It will bring you back to Amsterdam all right.

As it would on a planar earth as well.
The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude.  It wouldn't on a RE. (I know that no one actually flies this way, so don't try to correct me)
Errm.. It would...  ???

Yes, it would. They'd be minor corrections, but as all commercial aircraft fly on the computers, particularly in the cruise, the logs would record those inputs.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Ski on March 02, 2014, 09:46:38 PM
East and west are not straight lines (or "are turning") on the flat earth or a globe.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: 29silhouette on March 03, 2014, 09:09:17 AM
The difference of course being on a globe, one could head straight east/west on the equator, and then would have to turn the other way in the southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 03, 2014, 04:55:09 PM
The difference of course being on a globe, one could head straight east/west on the equator, and then would have to turn the other way in the southern hemisphere.

Yes.  Could you please show us where this happens?  Maybe a single account of someone experiencing this?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: 29silhouette on March 03, 2014, 07:06:24 PM
The difference of course being on a globe, one could head straight east/west on the equator, and then would have to turn the other way in the southern hemisphere.
Yes.  Could you please show us where this happens?
  It happens on a globe.  Trace a latitude line heading east in the north, you'll have to turn left.  Trace a latitude line east in the south, you turn right.  Trace the equator, you go straight.

Quote
Maybe a single account of someone experiencing this?
Pretty much everyone who has looked at latitude lines on a desktop globe or google earth and happened to notice it.  See for yourself if you have a desktop globe or GE.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Ski on March 04, 2014, 09:51:20 AM
The difference of course being on a globe, one could head straight east/west on the equator, and then would have to turn the other way in the southern hemisphere.
Yes.  Could you please show us where this happens?
  It happens on a globe.  Trace a latitude line heading east in the north, you'll have to turn left.  Trace a latitude line east in the south, you turn right.  Trace the equator, you go straight.
Yes, certainly that happens on a globe. I believe the question was, is this occurring or has this occurred on the earth which might lead us to believe it was a globe.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Chewbacabra on March 10, 2014, 03:30:31 PM
If you fly South it has to be a straight line. And then what happens. Do you hit the south pole or flip to another world underneath the earth?

What would happen would be your plane crashing after being shot by the heavies NASA has put on the ice wall.

Obviously  ::).
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: markjo on March 10, 2014, 04:54:14 PM
The plane would have to constantly be turning on a FE to remain at the same latitude.  It wouldn't on a RE.
Actually, any pilot worth his salt wouldn't be flying on a line of latitude.  He would be flying a great circle.
(http://web.wm.edu/geology/blog/dsfig2.jpg)
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on March 11, 2014, 09:00:16 AM

Yes, certainly that happens on a globe. I believe the question was, is this occurring or has this occurred on the earth which might lead us to believe it was a globe.

Try this example as clarification:

You travel to the North pole.  You stand 100m distant from it, and start walking in a circle of 200m diameter with the pole at its geometric centre, and in an easterly direction.  Do you need to turn slightly to your left to complete the circular path you're walking? 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Ski on March 31, 2014, 12:40:54 PM
Yes, now have you any evidence that the second part of your theory is actually happening?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: danger2007 on April 04, 2014, 04:02:32 PM

I note that sceptimatic never answered my questions about his own sources of information that he uses to support his belief in a flat earth.

A few days ago he said that "They [REs] have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet, of course".

And I said:

Quote
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data YOU utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It's becoming apparent that when a FE can't answer a direct question, they invariably just ignore it and hope, given time, people will forget about it and it'll just go away.

So... what about it sceptimatic?

They won't provide you with reliable sources ever. The closest they have is a man how has been dis-proven many times and described as a charlatan (even by the church), Samuel Rowbotham, and a statement made by Galileo who at the time was under duress caused by intimidation from the catholic church, an organization that hasn't done much to make themselves seem trust worthy in the last few years...

The other reason this won't be answered is that the society is terrified of committing to an actual layout of the continents of the earth and has freely admitted they don't know.

[Edit] Source Added - http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm)
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: RandomREalist on April 04, 2014, 04:37:18 PM

I note that sceptimatic never answered my questions about his own sources of information that he uses to support his belief in a flat earth.

A few days ago he said that "They [REs] have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet, of course".

And I said:

Quote
And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data YOU utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It's becoming apparent that when a FE can't answer a direct question, they invariably just ignore it and hope, given time, people will forget about it and it'll just go away.

So... what about it sceptimatic?

They won't provide you with reliable sources ever. The closest they have is a man how has been dis-proven many times and described as a charlatan (even by the church), Samuel Rowbotham, and a statement made by Galileo who at the time was under duress caused by intimidation from the catholic church, an organization that hasn't done much to make themselves seem trust worthy in the last few years...

The other reason this won't be answered is that the society is terrified of committing to an actual layout of the continents of the earth and has freely admitted they don't know.

[Edit] Source Added - http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm)

I'd be happy with some dimensions. If it's square/rectangular, what are the lengths? if it's circular/round, what's the radius or diameter.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on April 05, 2014, 01:48:27 PM

I'd be happy with some dimensions. If it's square/rectangular, what are the lengths? if it's circular/round, what's the radius or diameter.

Trust me; not one of the flat earthers here will be able to give you any sort of definitive dimensions backed up with empirical evidence.  The proposed dimensions of their flat earth are entirely dependent on which flat earther is telling the story at the time, and has no basis whatsoever in reality. 

They use a sort of nebulous agglomeration of hearsay, conjecture, fancies, guesstimates, factoids, and imagination in order to come up with any sorts of figures at all.  It's actually quite amusing to watch different flat earthers propound their own personal theories about the purported shape  and size of the planet, whilst none at all can agree on a common model.

So I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for any sort of "accurate" answers to your question.
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 05, 2014, 01:55:08 PM
Why do RE scientists not all agree with each other?  You would think that they would all have the same opinions on everything if they did real science.  They can't all come to the same conclusion.  How can you take them seriously? 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Starman on April 05, 2014, 02:00:46 PM
Why do RE scientists not all agree with each other?  You would think that they would all have the same opinions on everything if they did real science.  They can't all come to the same conclusion.  How can you take them seriously?
They do.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 05, 2014, 02:11:35 PM
No, they don't.  Some say that Gravity is a particle.  Some say it is an energy.  Some say it is bendy space_time.  There are dozens of other theories.

Most scientists say that HIV causes AIDS.  However, there are a bunch who claim it does not.

Some say that vaccines are good for kids.  Others say that the side affects are worse than the diseases they are supposed to protect against. 

You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on April 05, 2014, 02:45:39 PM
No, they don't.  Some say that Gravity is a particle.  Some say it is an energy.  Some say it is bendy space_time.  There are dozens of other theories.

Most scientists say that HIV causes AIDS.  However, there are a bunch who claim it does not.

Some say that vaccines are good for kids.  Others say that the side affects are worse than the diseases they are supposed to protect against. 

You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

Notice again if you will round earthers, how deftly jroa attempts to derail a thread by introducing some totally unconnected factoids (about human health).

Well done mate!  And you call yourself a moderator, when in fact you're one of the worst culprits on these forums for this sort of rule breaking.  Tsk, tsk.

BTW; you also claim that "There are dozens of other theories" about gravity.  Could you please list just a few of them?

—I thought not.  Because there aren't any.  Sorry.
 
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 05, 2014, 02:50:58 PM
No, they don't.  Some say that Gravity is a particle.  Some say it is an energy.  Some say it is bendy space_time.  There are dozens of other theories.

Most scientists say that HIV causes AIDS.  However, there are a bunch who claim it does not.

Some say that vaccines are good for kids.  Others say that the side affects are worse than the diseases they are supposed to protect against. 

You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

Notice again if you will round earthers, how deftly jroa attempts to derail a thread by introducing some totally unconnected factoids (about human health).

Well done mate!  And you call yourself a moderator, when in fact you're one of the worst culprits on these forums for this sort of rule breaking.  Tsk, tsk.

BTW; you also claim that "There are dozens of other theories" about gravity.  Could you please list just a few of them?

—I thought not.  Because there aren't any.  Sorry.
 
 


lol, I answered a question and you try to say I am derailing.  Then, you ask something that is off topic.  Do you not see the hypocrisy? 

Anyway, sense you asked, here is a link to a list of dozens of theories about gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation)
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Starman on April 05, 2014, 02:55:06 PM
No, they don't.  Some say that Gravity is a particle.  Some say it is an energy.  Some say it is bendy space_time.  There are dozens of other theories.

Most scientists say that HIV causes AIDS.  However, there are a bunch who claim it does not.

Some say that vaccines are good for kids.  Others say that the side affects are worse than the diseases they are supposed to protect against. 

You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

Notice again if you will round earthers, how deftly jroa attempts to derail a thread by introducing some totally unconnected factoids (about human health).

Well done mate!  And you call yourself a moderator, when in fact you're one of the worst culprits on these forums for this sort of rule breaking.  Tsk, tsk.

BTW; you also claim that "There are dozens of other theories" about gravity.  Could you please list just a few of them?

—I thought not.  Because there aren't any.  Sorry.
 
 


lol, I answered a question and you try to say I am derailing.  Then, you ask something that is off topic.  Do you not see the hypocrisy? 

Anyway, sense you asked, here is a link to a list of dozens of theories about gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation)
I did not see anything there about UA.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: inquisitive on April 05, 2014, 03:09:24 PM
Why do RE scientists not all agree with each other?  You would think that they would all have the same opinions on everything if they did real science.  They can't all come to the same conclusion.  How can you take them seriously?
All RE scientists agree the earth is.... round.  Which is what we are discussing here.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on April 05, 2014, 03:10:01 PM
lol, I answered a question and you try to say I am derailing.  Then, you ask something that is off topic.  Do you not see the hypocrisy? 

Anyway, sense you asked, here is a link to a list of dozens of theories about gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_gravitation)

Uh... how exactly do you figure I asked an off-topic question when it was YOU who first mentioned "gravity" by saying "some say that Gravity is a particle.  Some say it is an energy.  Some say it is bendy space-time"?  You really need to read back over your earlier posts mate before making a bit more of a fool of yourself eh?

And how is it that most flat earthers refuse to accept Wikipedia as a credible reference whenever it's cited by a round earther, but now, suddenly, it seems a perfectly legitimate source to be citing by a flat earther?  Which is it gonna be in future jroa?  Wikipedia is an acceptable reference for round earthers to cite, or it's not?  Please let us know—and maybe also tell your other flat earth pals of this decision also, as they're obviously confused.

At any rate jroa, I'm not gonna accept your Wiki reference as it is anyway, as you don't/can't even understand 99% of those scientific terms yourself LOL.  I wanted you to do some actual... um... research of your own on the subject.  And not give me link I first read years ago duh.
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 05, 2014, 03:19:23 PM
I mentioned gravity as an example where your scientists do not agree with each other, which was totally in the context of the discussion. 

Who claimed that you can not learn something from Wikipedia? 

Also, what is it that I do not understand about science?  I would like to know. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: inquisitive on April 05, 2014, 03:21:15 PM
I mentioned gravity as an example where your scientists do not agree with each other, which was totally in the context of the discussion. 

Who claimed that you can not learn something from Wikipedia? 

Also, what is it that I do not understand about science?  I would like to know.
Who is this 'your', why do you use the word?  Are there some that belong to you, if so, please name them.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 05, 2014, 03:24:23 PM
If they belonged to me, I would have said mine, not your.  Don't you know how words work? 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: inquisitive on April 05, 2014, 03:32:31 PM
If they belonged to me, I would have said mine, not your.  Don't you know how words work?
Why not just 'scientists', what are you implying?

ps who are yours, belonging to you.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on April 05, 2014, 03:45:17 PM
Who is this 'your', why do you use the word?  Are there some that belong to you, if so, please name them.


jroa likes to use these sorts of pejorative terms in an attempt to denigrate contemporary scientists.  You'll notice that a lot of flat earthers also refer to round earthers as "you people" for similar reasons.  It's quite funny actually because it's so obvious.

And if you seriously expect jroa to name a few of "their" scientists, you'll be growing a long grey beard waiting for an answer.  I've asked numerous times for jroa, or any other flat earther, to name half a dozen living, academically accredited scientists who accept the flat earth model, and thus far it just ain't happened LOL.  And it never will because there are none.
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 05, 2014, 03:51:03 PM
First you asked us to name one FE scientist.  Then, when we gave you that, you changed it to some flat Earth scientists.  Now, you have raised it to a half dozen.  You seem like you are hanging on by your last straw. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on April 05, 2014, 04:06:56 PM
First you asked us to name one FE scientist.  Then, when we gave you that, you changed it to some flat Earth scientists.  Now, you have raised it to a half dozen.  You seem like you are hanging on by your last straw.

Uh... do you seriously believe that by naming one, single scientist who you allege accepts the flat earth model—out of a pool of 6,000,000—that it proves the earth is flat?  Really?

If that's the case, I have a nice, freshly painted bridge I can sell you jroa.   ;D

BTW: Please refresh my memory.  I can't find the post with his/her name in it.

(And I'm also assuming from your response that you can't name half a dozen "flat earth scientists"?  Would that be a correct assumption?)
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 05, 2014, 04:12:06 PM
His name is George Vanderduur.  Is your Google broken? 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on April 05, 2014, 04:21:33 PM
His name is George Vanderduur.  Is your Google broken?

Wrong on both counts jroa.  Sorry mate.

His name is George Vanderkuur, and he most definitely accepts that the earth IS an oblate spheroid.  He has a B.Sc. in Physics and would laugh you out the door with your flat earth theories.

So where are your other five scientists who allegedly accept the flat earth model?
 
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 05, 2014, 04:24:41 PM
Yes, I made a typo.  I am man enough to admit it.  Can you provide any evidence that he in fact believes the Earth is round?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on April 05, 2014, 04:58:49 PM
Can you provide any evidence that he in fact believes the Earth is round?

Nope.  I have no need to.  You're the person proposing that the earth is flat, therefore it's your task to prove that George Vanderkuur believes that the earth is flat.  He's effectively your expert witness to (hopefully) prove your case, therefore the onus of proof lies with you.

But at any rate, he's definitely a round earther.  Check out the teacher's notes for that spoof video HERE (http://bit.ly/1dZDnpZ).

You'll see that they say in part "George Vanderkuur, Scientist (“one of many scientists” supporting a flat earth)
Using plumb bob to build tall buildings, opposite sides point to center of Earth would be further apart at
top than at bottom.
"

Note the quotes around "one of many scientists".  This was part of the spoof, as it's a fabrication meant to mislead the kids.
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on April 05, 2014, 05:06:41 PM
If they belonged to me, I would have said mine, not your.  Don't you know how words work?
I wasn't aware I owned any scientists.  When did this happen?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 05, 2014, 05:07:19 PM
Can you provide any evidence that he in fact believes the Earth is round?

Nope.  I have no need to.  You're the person proposing that the earth is flat, therefore it's your task to prove that George Vanderkuur believes that the earth is flat.  He's effectively your expert witness to (hopefully) prove your case, therefore the onus of proof lies with you.

But at any rate, he's definitely a round earther.  Check out the teacher's notes for that spoof video HERE (http://bit.ly/1dZDnpZ).

You'll see that they say in part "George Vanderkuur, Scientist (“one of many scientists” supporting a flat earth)
Using plumb bob to build tall buildings, opposite sides point to center of Earth would be further apart at
top than at bottom.
"

Note the quotes around "one of many scientists".  This was part of the spoof, as it's a fabrication meant to mislead the kids.
 

So, you got nothing then, am I right?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 05, 2014, 05:08:21 PM
If they belonged to me, I would have said mine, not your.  Don't you know how words work?
I wasn't aware I owned any scientists.  When did this happen?

Stop owning free men, jerk. We are all created equal. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: danger2007 on April 06, 2014, 03:40:21 PM
You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

We do because different theories in our scientific community come with at least some peer reviewed evidence or statistics. Your theories come with out of date text and things people on here have made up....
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: FlatOrange on April 06, 2014, 04:45:08 PM
The easiest reply is to challenge him.

Say, "Well, have you done it?"

You cannot buy tickets from Amsterdam to Amsterdam so I think there's a conspiracy...
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 04:57:03 PM
The easiest reply is to challenge him.

Say, "Well, have you done it?"

You cannot buy tickets from Amsterdam to Amsterdam so I think there's a conspiracy...

Yes, because it'd be soooo wrong of a company to charge you money to stay in the city you're already in. What you could do, is continue to pick cities just east or west of where you're at. For instance, start in New York city. Fly to chicago, then fly to LA, then to say japan, then moscow, then london, and finally back to NYC
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 06, 2014, 05:20:31 PM
You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

We do because different theories in our scientific community come with at least some peer reviewed evidence or statistics. Your theories come with out of date text and things people on here have made up....

Please show us some evidence of string theory.  Oh, what is that?  There is no evidence?  It is just a theory? 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Starman on April 06, 2014, 05:52:05 PM
You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

We do because different theories in our scientific community come with at least some peer reviewed evidence or statistics. Your theories come with out of date text and things people on here have made up....

Please show us some evidence of string theory.  Oh, what is that?  There is no evidence?  It is just a theory?
What do know about string theory?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 06, 2014, 05:57:51 PM
It is a theory with no evidence. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Starman on April 06, 2014, 06:07:07 PM
It is a theory with no evidence.
No true. It is an excepted theory with excepted evidence. You probably don't understand what that means.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 06, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
I expect the Earth to be flat.  Checkmate. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Starman on April 06, 2014, 06:16:15 PM
I expect the Earth to be flat.  Checkmate.
What you are saying then there is no evidence the earth is flat. Checkmate!
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 06, 2014, 06:17:40 PM
You are the one who brought up that the scientists expect something. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Starman on April 06, 2014, 06:24:11 PM
You are the one who brought up that the scientists expect something.
I said excepted not expected.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 06, 2014, 06:28:27 PM
Did you mean accepted? 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on April 07, 2014, 03:57:35 AM
It is a theory with no evidence.

Nope.  You're (as you usually do) confusing a "theory" with some sort of physically observable entity.  You simply refuse to acknowledge what "evidence" is in its simplest form.   This is why you're unable to comprehend the theory of gravity.  Scientific theories are commonly defined by the phenomena they produce—such as an apple falling to the ground due to gravitational forces.  An apple always falls to the ground anywhere on the planet, and has for millions of years.  This phenomena is infinitely replicable, and because of this proves that the current scientific definition of gravity is correct.  The physical phenomenon is all that's necessary to prove the theory of gravity.

Presumably, you happily accept the theories of magnetism, electricity and radioactivity?  Why then reject gravity?  Or string theory?

In simple layman's terms, string theory says that all the particles in the universe are really little "strings", rather than as the conventional "ball-shapes" they were normally thought of.  Unlike the balls (or more accurately, points) which are zero-dimensional, strings are one-dimensional. 

The four forces string theory conflates are the electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear force and gravity. String theory is known for uniting both the physical laws of the large (Einstein's general relativity—stars, planets, and people) and the small (quantum mechanics—subatomic particles), which were previously incompatible.

Short for super sting theory, current M-theory is an extension of string theory, in which 11 dimensions of spacetime are identified as 7 higher-dimensions plus the four dimensions in Euclidean space.

But this is not the place to talk in depth about string theory.  You'll just have to accept that thousands of scientists the world over accept its premises, and are working on elaborating its agency. 

—Whereas round earthers are still citing Samuel Rowbotham's fairy stories LOL.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on April 07, 2014, 05:03:00 AM
You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

We do because different theories in our scientific community come with at least some peer reviewed evidence or statistics. Your theories come with out of date text and things people on here have made up....

Please show us some evidence of string theory.
Why?   What's that got to do anything?  Makes a change from your obession with dark matter, at least.

Quote
  Oh, what is that?  There is no evidence?  It is just a theory?
Actually, many scientists don't think it makes it as scientific theory - as it does not make falisfiable predictions.  Someone even wrote a book about it called Not Even Wrong.  It could be called a mathematical framework, rather than a theory.

(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/d/df/String_theory.png)
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on April 07, 2014, 06:23:12 AM


Please show us some evidence of string theory.  Oh, what is that?  There is no evidence?  It is just a theory?
I posted this yesterday jroa, but you may have missed it:

Quote
So where are your other five scientists who allegedly accept the flat earth model?

Have you found any more names yet?
 

 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on April 07, 2014, 06:47:22 AM

I'd be happy with some dimensions. If it's square/rectangular, what are the lengths? if it's circular/round, what's the radius or diameter.

Trust me; not one of the flat earthers here will be able to give you any sort of definitive dimensions backed up with empirical evidence.  The proposed dimensions of their flat earth are entirely dependent on which flat earther is telling the story at the time, and has no basis whatsoever in reality. 


A couple of days down the track now, and not one flat earther has even attempted to give us any dimensions whatsoever for their proposed flat earth model.

It's now becoming more obvious every day that the flat earthers simply have no agreed-upon working model for their proposal of a flat earth.  And apart from a scribbled image on a piece of paper (courtesy sceptimatic) or referring to the United Nations logo(!), they seem not to even possess a formal map.

And at this point I should remind sceptimatic that he promised to produce a more detailed, elaborate version of his quick sketch within a few days of posting that sketch.  Where is it?

Or has it ended up in the same nebulous cyberspace location as his laser/ice experimental research results—that were going to completely reverse the theories of modern science?

Who can know?  Maybe sceptimatic is spending all his spare time working on some major new invention that'll be hitting the retail market soon—in order to maintain his fabulously wealthy lifestyle?  Or I guess he could be enjoying one of his numerous holiday trips into North Korea to visit the rest of the Dong family, or the Wangs?
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: V on May 02, 2014, 09:56:26 PM
It is a theory with no evidence.
There is no evidence that supports it, but there is no evidence against it. This is the difference between string theory and pseudoscientific flat earth "theory". There is a very large body of evidence, such as the Foucault pendulum, that supports the fact that the earth is round and rotating, but until you see it with your own eyes you cry "FABRICATIONS!! LIES!!" and ignore the sharpness of Occam's razor.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: RandomREalist on May 03, 2014, 04:31:54 AM

I'd be happy with some dimensions. If it's square/rectangular, what are the lengths? if it's circular/round, what's the radius or diameter.

Trust me; not one of the flat earthers here will be able to give you any sort of definitive dimensions backed up with empirical evidence.  The proposed dimensions of their flat earth are entirely dependent on which flat earther is telling the story at the time, and has no basis whatsoever in reality. 


A couple of days down the track now, and not one flat earther has even attempted to give us any dimensions whatsoever for their proposed flat earth model.

It's now becoming more obvious every day that the flat earthers simply have no agreed-upon working model for their proposal of a flat earth.  And apart from a scribbled image on a piece of paper (courtesy sceptimatic) or referring to the United Nations logo(!), they seem not to even possess a formal map.

And at this point I should remind sceptimatic that he promised to produce a more detailed, elaborate version of his quick sketch within a few days of posting that sketch.  Where is it?

Or has it ended up in the same nebulous cyberspace location as his laser/ice experimental research results—that were going to completely reverse the theories of modern science?

Who can know?  Maybe sceptimatic is spending all his spare time working on some major new invention that'll be hitting the retail market soon—in order to maintain his fabulously wealthy lifestyle?  Or I guess he could be enjoying one of his numerous holiday trips into North Korea to visit the rest of the Dong family, or the Wangs?

Days? That's been a month, and i'm pretty sure i made a similar point else where, before that even.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on May 03, 2014, 06:14:07 AM

After jroa claimed to have named a scientist who (purportedly) accepted the flat earth theory—after I'd asked him for half a dozen names—he failed to respond.

So, a few days afterwards, I posted this in an effort to get a few more names:

Quote
So where are your other five scientists who allegedly accept the flat earth model?

Now, an entire month later, he's still not posted any more names of scientists who accept the flat earth model.  Presumably this is because there are none... not even five!  Who knows?  I couldn't find any.

So, after a month, we can be sure that jroa has had more than enough time to research those scientists, and can now name them.

Over to you jroa.  (And please note that any other flat earther is more than welcome to answer my challenge of naming half a dozen accredited scientists who accept the flat earth model.)
 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: V on May 03, 2014, 07:07:57 AM

After jroa claimed to have named a scientist who (purportedly) accepted the flat earth theory—after I'd asked him for half a dozen names—he failed to respond.

So, a few days afterwards, I posted this in an effort to get a few more names:

Quote
So where are your other five scientists who allegedly accept the flat earth model?

Now, an entire month later, he's still not posted any more names of scientists who accept the flat earth model.  Presumably this is because there are none... not even five!  Who knows?  I couldn't find any.

So, after a month, we can be sure that jroa has had more than enough time to research those scientists, and can now name them.

Over to you jroa.  (And please note that any other flat earther is more than welcome to answer my challenge of naming half a dozen accredited scientists who accept the flat earth model.)
All I know is you'll find a lot of pseudoscientists.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: RealScientist on May 03, 2014, 07:51:55 AM
You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

We do because different theories in our scientific community come with at least some peer reviewed evidence or statistics. Your theories come with out of date text and things people on here have made up....

Please show us some evidence of string theory.  Oh, what is that?  There is no evidence?  It is just a theory?
What do know about string theory?
You have to be careful when talking about String Theory. People like the FE'ers in this forum know a couple of facts that are enough to make some reasonable people look silly:
- String "Theory" is not a theory in the same sense as, for example, Newton's Laws of Motion. It is, in the scientific lingo, a hypothesis. And until new fields of Physics are developed, (or maybe forever) it will continue to be an unobservable hypothesis.
- String Theory is a mathematical model, and as such it can only be tested for internal consistency. It currently does not predict observable phenomena of any kind.
- As such, String Theory is most probably useful as a seed for new hypothesis that will become observable in the future. It will not become as Relativity, a frequently verified, observable theory that gives us verifiable predictions.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 03, 2014, 09:33:49 AM

After jroa claimed to have named a scientist who (purportedly) accepted the flat earth theory—after I'd asked him for half a dozen names—he failed to respond.

So, a few days afterwards, I posted this in an effort to get a few more names:

Quote
So where are your other five scientists who allegedly accept the flat earth model?

Now, an entire month later, he's still not posted any more names of scientists who accept the flat earth model.  Presumably this is because there are none... not even five!  Who knows?  I couldn't find any.

So, after a month, we can be sure that jroa has had more than enough time to research those scientists, and can now name them.

Over to you jroa.  (And please note that any other flat earther is more than welcome to answer my challenge of naming half a dozen accredited scientists who accept the flat earth model.)
 


Oh no.  I am done doing any research for you, ausGeoff.  Last time you demanded that I produce one single flat Earth scientist.  Not only did I provide a scientist who is a flat Earther, I also produced a university professor and a flat Earth researcher.  You simply brushed them all away, saying the researcher used a pseudonym and was therefore untrustworthy, the professor got his doctorate in philosophy, so he does not count, and the actual scientist was simply lying.  I am done wasting my time doing research for you.  Just like that RealScientist guy who demanded the name of one single NASA whistleblower and when I obliged him, he simply brushed it of as a joke. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Umurweird on May 03, 2014, 10:02:55 AM
George Vanderkuur believes gravity is what makes things look curved from a distance.

Earlier in this thread jroa you made a point about "re" scientists not agreeing on things and how that should make us question stuff.

I would like to now turn this around. From what I can tell on this forum.........there are a good amount of people that believe the world is flat yet none of you can really agree on how the physics of that flat earth work. You can't agree on a map or any basic explanations.

And, as it would appear in Vanderkuur's place, can't even agree on whether gravity exists or not.

So.....why should anyone believe any of this?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 03, 2014, 10:25:15 AM
RE'ers are always complaining that FE'ers do not always agree with each other.  That was the reason I brought up the fact that RE scientists do not agree with each other either, yet, somehow, we are held to a higher standard. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Umurweird on May 03, 2014, 10:28:53 AM
Quote
RE'ers are always complaining that FE'ers do not always agree with each other.  That was the reason I brought up the fact that RE scientists do not agree with each other either, yet, somehow, we are held to a higher standard. 

Mainstream scientists don't agree on every subject along the vast spectrum of subjects they study.

Yet they do agree on MANY basic principles of physics and other areas of science. Hypothesis are brought forward, moved to theories and tested repeatedly and sometimes become accepted facts and other times simply stay as theories.

FE "scientist" and believes can't even agree on a map. Or basic physics.

See the difference? I'm sure you do but will pretend you don't.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: V on May 03, 2014, 06:39:39 PM
RE'ers are always complaining that FE'ers do not always agree with each other.  That was the reason I brought up the fact that RE scientists do not agree with each other either, yet, somehow, we are held to a higher standard.
FE pseudoscientists can not agree on basic pieces of information such as the size or shape of their flat earth or the sun or moon or stars.
Proper scientists agree on basic information such as the size of the earth, the distance to the moon, the distance to the sun, and a map.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on May 04, 2014, 05:19:39 AM

Oh no.  I am done doing any research for you, ausGeoff.  Last time you demanded that I produce one single flat Earth scientist.  Not only did I provide a scientist who is a flat Earther, I also produced a university professor and a flat Earth researcher.  You simply brushed them all away, saying the researcher used a pseudonym and was therefore untrustworthy, the professor got his doctorate in philosophy, so he does not count, and the actual scientist was simply lying.  I am done wasting my time doing research for you

I thank you for at the very least inadvertently admitting you cannot name another five scientists who accept the flat earth theory jroa.

I see that you've attempted (unsuccessfully) to put the onus back on to me as the fly in the ointment here, but any logical thinker will see through your subterfuge instantly.  Sorry.

And you still seem unable to understand the fact that scientist George Vanderkuur was taking part in an educational "spoof" aimed at high schools kid's studies in logical reasoning.  Vanderkuur is in actuality (and quite predictably as such) a scientist who accepts the spherical model of the planet unequivocally.

And it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes of your time to "research" the names of half a dozen accredited scientists who accept your flat earth model.  I can instantly name half a dozen scientists who accept the round earth model without doing any research at all;  I know of them (and more) off the top of my head.  Why would you be required to do any research to name half a dozen of your alleged flat earth scientists?  There must be hundreds of them globally?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 04, 2014, 08:51:13 AM
Leo Ferrari was also in that video.  He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada.  Are you also saying that he was lying? 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on May 05, 2014, 08:02:10 AM
Leo Ferrari was also in that video.  He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada.  Are you also saying that he was lying?
The late Leo Ferrari facetiously styled himself as a "planoterrestrialist", and who in actuality accepted the spheroid earth model.

With obvious humorous overtones, his Flat Earth Society of Canada claimed a prevailing problem of the new technological age was the willingness of people to accept theories "on blind faith and to reject the evidence of their own senses." They did not actually believe flat earth theories, considering their proponents to be cranks.

You can check out Ferrari's Canadian FES HERE (http://bit.ly/1hs4shj)

So to answer your question; yes, Ferrari was distorting the truth.  But for a practical purpose 40 years ago.
 

 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: evildylan on May 05, 2014, 08:58:58 AM
Leo Ferrari was also in that video.  He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada.  Are you also saying that he was lying?

Leo Ferrari was not a scientist, he was a philosophy professor.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 05, 2014, 05:15:23 PM
Leo Ferrari was also in that video.  He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada.  Are you also saying that he was lying?
The late Leo Ferrari facetiously styled himself as a "planoterrestrialist", and who in actuality accepted the spheroid earth model.

With obvious humorous overtones, his Flat Earth Society of Canada claimed a prevailing problem of the new technological age was the willingness of people to accept theories "on blind faith and to reject the evidence of their own senses." They did not actually believe flat earth theories, considering their proponents to be cranks.

You can check out Ferrari's Canadian FES HERE (http://bit.ly/1hs4shj)

So to answer your question; yes, Ferrari was distorting the truth.  But for a practical purpose 40 years ago.
 

 

Leo Ferrari was also in that video.  He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada.  Are you also saying that he was lying?
The late Leo Ferrari facetiously styled himself as a "planoterrestrialist", and who in actuality accepted the spheroid earth model.

With obvious humorous overtones, his Flat Earth Society of Canada claimed a prevailing problem of the new technological age was the willingness of people to accept theories "on blind faith and to reject the evidence of their own senses." They did not actually believe flat earth theories, considering their proponents to be cranks.

You can check out Ferrari's Canadian FES HERE (http://bit.ly/1hs4shj)

So to answer your question; yes, Ferrari was distorting the truth.  But for a practical purpose 40 years ago.
 

 


Sounds like a lot of personal opinion, would you agree? 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 06, 2014, 07:16:10 AM
Leo Ferrari was also in that video.  He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada.  Are you also saying that he was lying?
He wasn't a scientist.  And yes, absolutely he was lying.

Just like you are.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: markjo on May 06, 2014, 07:27:34 AM
Leo Ferrari was also in that video.  He was a founding member of the Flat Earth Society of Canada.  Are you also saying that he was lying?
Leo Ferrari also claimed to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Are you saying that he wasn't lying about that?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_if5E0DJk_aw/Rt6xhyK8B2I/AAAAAAAAAJI/-8v3Zm2--FQ/s400/ROYALS01.JPG)
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 06, 2014, 07:38:56 AM
Who cares?  He founded the Flat Earth Society of Canada, and he was a Professor of Philosophy at a University.  Did he smoke a joint when he was in college?  Maybe, but would that nullify everything else in his life?  I don't think so. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: markjo on May 06, 2014, 08:35:30 AM
So, if the Archbishop of Canterbury. A.K.A. Leo Ferrari. says that the earth is flat, then it must be true?  Sounds more like a long running college prank to me.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 06, 2014, 09:11:24 AM
So, if the Archbishop of Canterbury. A.K.A. Leo Ferrari. says that the earth is flat, then it must be true?  Sounds more like a long running college prank to me.

lol, markjo.  You seem to equate everything with everything else.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: markjo on May 06, 2014, 09:40:52 AM
You seem to equate everything with everything else.
???  How does that even make sense?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Ski on May 06, 2014, 12:45:46 PM
Leo Ferrari was not a true flat earther. Yet, he poignantly embraced the sacred ability to doubt. He was closer to truth than he realized.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: V on May 06, 2014, 02:11:05 PM
Leo Ferrari was not a true flat earther. Yet, he poignantly embraced the sacred ability to doubt. He was closer to truth than he realized.
The ability to doubt.
As if we don't have that already.
It's how we make progress in science. How do you think Galileo would have proven the heliocentric system if he refused to doubt? He clearly believed the earth was round.
Einstein? He doubted Newton's theories.
Planck? Schrödinger? They doubted classical physics, and replaced it with their own.
The ability to doubt is something that all proper scientists have. What flat-earthers have is the ability to doubt a fact that is painfully obvious.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 06, 2014, 02:46:47 PM
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others.  And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories.  Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Starman on May 06, 2014, 02:48:32 PM
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others.  And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories.  Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.
And your point is?
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 06, 2014, 02:51:28 PM
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others.  And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories.  Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.
And your point is?

I was correcting the previous poster's misconceptions.  My post was on topic and the content was appropriate.  Your post contributed nothing to the topic at hand and I consider it to be low content.   Please, refrain from low content posting in the upper fora.  Consider this a warning, Starman. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Starman on May 06, 2014, 02:53:50 PM
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others.  And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories.  Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.
And your point is?

I was correcting the previous poster's misconceptions.  My post was on topic and the content was appropriate.  Your post contributed nothing to the topic at hand and I consider it to be low content.   Please, refrain from low content posting in the upper fora.  Consider this a warning, Starman.
Now that is funny. You make a statement that is basically your opinion and you snap to me about no content. Ok prove your false statement.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Vauxhall on May 06, 2014, 02:54:46 PM
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others.  And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories.  Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.
And your point is?

I was correcting the previous poster's misconceptions.  My post was on topic and the content was appropriate.  Your post contributed nothing to the topic at hand and I consider it to be low content.   Please, refrain from low content posting in the upper fora.  Consider this a warning, Starman.
Now that is funny. You make a statement that is basically your opinion and you snap to me about no content. Ok prove your false statement.

I would also consider this low content posting. Do you just like to read what you type, or what? Seriously, take your BS posts to the lower fora.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 06, 2014, 02:57:34 PM
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others.  And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories.  Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.
And your point is?

I was correcting the previous poster's misconceptions.  My post was on topic and the content was appropriate.  Your post contributed nothing to the topic at hand and I consider it to be low content.   Please, refrain from low content posting in the upper fora.  Consider this a warning, Starman.
Now that is funny. You make a statement that is basically your opinion and you snap to me about no content. Ok prove your false statement.

You are now claiming that when I state facts, it is just my opinion?  Also, that justifies your low content posting? 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Vauxhall on May 06, 2014, 03:14:06 PM
Ok prove your false statement.

Why don't you prove that the statement is false? Because, from what I see, you're the only one claiming it to be false.

Burden of proof's on you, buddy.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: RandomREalist on May 06, 2014, 03:22:20 PM
Ok prove your false statement.

Why don't you prove that the statement is false? Because, from what I see, you're the only one claiming it to be false.

Burden of proof's on you, buddy.

Person "a" says "what goes up will continue indefinitely" .

Person "b" says "I disagreed with that old foggie Person a, what goes up, MUST come down!"

person "c" says "I disagree with that old man person b "what goes up, generally comes down, but there's some special cases in which it doesn't work like that!"

By disagreeing with person b, person c implicitly also disagrees with person a. It doesn't matter that person b has already disagreed with person A and proved his theories to be off by a bit.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: bravimone on May 07, 2014, 06:00:37 AM
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others.  And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories.  Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.

Everyone builds upon the works of others, if he wants to obtain something. You FErs don't, and we see the results.
And Newton wasn't "out of the picture". There were some unexplained problems, like Mercury's orbital precession, but it was the only theory available.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 07, 2014, 09:41:06 AM
Yeah, there's a notion that Newtonian mechanics were suddenly abandoned because they were proven false or something to that effect. It's weapons grade baloney. Those laws are just special cases of the more complete, relativistic ones that came later. You can use relativity to work out the motion of two 100g balls colliding on your desk if you like but you'll get the same answer Newton would have.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 07, 2014, 10:01:57 AM
Yeah, there's a notion that Newtonian mechanics were suddenly abandoned because they were proven false or something to that effect. It's weapons grade baloney. Those laws are just special cases of the more complete, relativistic ones that came later. You can use relativity to work out the motion of two 100g balls colliding on your desk if you like but you'll get the same answer Newton would have.

You do realize that Special Relativity has completely different formulas for pretty much all physics as compared to Newton, right?  Newtonian equations are convenient and simplistic and that is why they are taught to high school kids.  Special Relativity equations are more accurate, but for our frame of reference, the results are very close to the Newtonian ones.  Newton's formulas simply don't work when you get bigger or smaller than our frame of reference. 
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: markjo on May 07, 2014, 12:11:06 PM
You do realize that Special Relativity has completely different formulas for pretty much all physics as compared to Newton, right?  Newtonian equations are convenient and simplistic and that is why they are taught to high school kids.  Special Relativity equations are more accurate, but for our frame of reference, the results are very close to the Newtonian ones.  Newton's formulas simply don't work when you get bigger or smaller than our frame of reference.
Just out of curiosity, what is the point of this argument?  Debating Einstein vs Newton may be fun, but it does absolutely nothing to support FET or refute RET.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 07, 2014, 04:34:46 PM
You do realize that Special Relativity has completely different formulas for pretty much all physics as compared to Newton, right?  Newtonian equations are convenient and simplistic and that is why they are taught to high school kids.  Special Relativity equations are more accurate, but for our frame of reference, the results are very close to the Newtonian ones.  Newton's formulas simply don't work when you get bigger or smaller than our frame of reference.

Yes, I vaguely remember that coming up when I studied physics at university  ::)

However, the point remains that Newtonian mechanics are just a subset of relativistic ones, not some completely different animal. In any case, it is just an interesting aside and doesn't do anything to push the thread forward. Not sure what will do that at this point, but I'm happy to drop it, I just twitch internally when some hugely powerful but incomplete model is described as "wrong" or "outdated" in a context where it's as valid as ever.
Title: Re: An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?
Post by: ausGeoff on May 08, 2014, 12:31:49 AM
Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others. 

And this is one of the principle methodologies of the scientific process.  Numerous scientists propose their own individual hypothesis about something, and each of those hypotheses is subsequently subject to peer review.  If the particular hypotheses stands up to the scrutiny of a peer review, then it becomes a scientific theory.

It always amuses me when flat earthers attempt to denigrate the major scientific theories formulated by people like Galileo, Newton, or Einstein in an attempt to reinforce their notions of a flat earth.

I wonder if any flat earther could name three scientists whose works parallel those of Galileo, Newton or Einstein?  And had such a major influence on the way we live today?

I'm betting not.